> C++ was originally "C, with Classes", so OOP was the whole point of C++ existing in the first place
This is like describing a middle aged man based on what he did in middle school. Things evolve. C++ has. Almost to a fault where one can legitimately call it a mutation.
I understand what you are saying, but really. Programmers don't change their ways when new features get added.
I always remark that programming practices change when programmers retire, not when features get added. Most people learn these things through existing code bases, and these habits last ages into the future.
This is why most of the times, you just start using a totally new language, that way you buy into a totally new set of programmers, practices and community.
> Programmers don't change their ways when new features get added.
The good ones do.
> This is why most of the times, you just start using a totally new language, that way you buy into a totally new set of programmers, practices and community.
What happens when that new language reaches a stage where it needs new features?
I think new languages are unnecessary unless they comprehensively solve the problems of the existing ones, and don't create new ones of their own. I have always felt that creating brand new languages is more of a personal taste driven rebellion against the language one uses. When they find that its too cumbersome for their taste, or the clique in committee refuses reforms etc, those who can will go ahead and create, some evangelize successfully (I feel this is the case because I have created a few half baked languages over the years to challenge C++ lol).
This is like describing a middle aged man based on what he did in middle school. Things evolve. C++ has. Almost to a fault where one can legitimately call it a mutation.